Police asking for Drivers License

[solosboss]

Someone recently told me that in the state of TN it is illegal for any police officer, except for a state trooper, to ask for your drivers' license. They can only ask for ID. Is this true or not?

[txinvestigator1]

No

[Lfpdlieu302]

i'm not from TN, but i doubt that is correct.

[vadep]

The answer is probably always "no" when the question begins "someone once told me......"

[hawkman]

Originally posted by vadep
The answer is probably always "no" when the question begins "someone once told me......"

Or I saw/read on the internet ;)

[HK45cal]

Since I am from Tennessee I will go ahead and tell you that this is untrue. The story appears to be a little twisted. Tennessee State Troopers have the authority to pull you over and request to see your license at any time, and for no other reason than that

[zander_zye]

Really HK? What happened to "probable cause"?

[gdowkpc]

I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not a lawyer and have never dealt with a law that spot checks for a drivers license, but would this exempt a jurisdiction from probable cause:

First, if the police stopped you to look at your drivers license, you are not necessarily being accused of a crime, you are just being checked to make sure you are properly licensed, therfore p/c would not be needed?

Second, maybe DMV or state law there put more emphasis on the state's granting of driving privrldges almost to the level that it's like a membership. You must show your membership card at request.

I don't know if it's true or not, just wondering if these ideas would fly.

[Scruit]

Just like in Ohio where the BMV can send you a letter asking to see you insurance card. No card? Suspended.

There is no PC for the letter - it's random. You must sign an agreement to let them do this before you can get your plates.

[gdowkpc]

Oregon does that, too. They call it "random sampling".

I once went to court on a driver who I wrote a ticket for Driving While Suspended. The judge just shook his head because he hated that the State could do that.

There are definate benefits, like more people are likely to get insured.

[EricTheBald]

Scruit -

Ohio's system sucks.

Assuming nothing has changed since 1997, you can get a ticket, present an insurance card, but somewhere along the way, someone makes a mistake at data entry. Maybe the cop forgets to the ticket that you had insurance, maybe it's someone else along the way.

NOW, you get your license suspended and if you are lucky, you actually get notice. (most people do of course, and can fix the problem)

But, if you DON'T, you're driving on a suspended license and don't know it.

I actually got arrested for that in July of 1997, based on a traffic stop in March of that year.

The cop was very sympathetic. he let me call my friends to come get my car instead of having it impounded.
He explained that it was a real problem and that there were literally grandmothers getting arrested for this.

I had to get bailed out of jail and because of costs involved with this mess had to miss a long weekend vacation i was supposed to go on.

Fortunately for me, I was skilled and knowledgeable enough to trace the paper trail and prove in court that the DMV sent notice to an address I never lived at and that I had NO lapse in insurance.

But the system sucked because it didn't have a way of correcting it's own mistakes.

It would really be so easy too...

Lets say you get your license suspended because DMV thinks you don't have insurance, only you don't know about it.

You then get pulled over.

If you have proof of insurance with you, and assuming your license is suspended ONLY for insurance reasons, you get a ticket that requires you to prove you had insurance at the point in the past in question.

The public is still protected and mistakes don't screw innocent people.

[gdowkpc]

DMV in Oregon stopped suspendeding people to the felony level. They now only suspend people criminally for things like DUII and chronic driving while suspended. And by criminally, I mean misdemeanor level. These people always know they are suspended.

The common reasons for getting suspended, like failing to appear as a hearing, uninsured accident, failing to show proof of insurance, etc, are just violations.

[Hightower]

Originally posted by zander_zye
Really HK? What happened to "probable cause"?

You don't need PC to make a traffic stop, you only need reasonable suspicion.

But that still doesn't address how State Troopers could pull someone over just to check for a license.

Hightower

[zander_zye]

In CA, you sure do need probable cause to stop a vehicle - it can be something very simple of course such as no light on the license plate, not signalling, no front license plate, etc.

How would you justify reasonable suspecion if you don't have probable cause? Does this mean you can pull someone over for being the wrong skin color or because you felt like it because they looked at you? I am just asking - I do not know the laws in your state.

[Hightower]

Courts have ruled that if you have reasonable suspicion, you may stop a vehicle to investigate further.

An example would be stopping a suspected drunk driver. If they are weaving excessively within their own lane, travelling 10 MPH under the limit, I would stop that vehicle because I would suspect DWI. Now, they have not commited any traffic violations, but I have a reasonable suspicion that they are DWI.

Another example would be this...An area in your city that has had numerous break-ins or thefts. You see a vehicle in the area at 0400 hours, this is completely residential. The license plate lists out of the area. I would make a traffic stop on that vehicle because I have reasonable suspicion that something is up and I must investigate it further.

Hightower